One Attorney's Perspective On Our Jury Trial System

 

                                                            By:  Ed Adams l0/27/09

 

 

Objective:  the objective of this article is to give a brief overview of the jury system in this country and to present a view (mine) of how it could be improved.

 

 

Summary:  In most cases, civil or criminal, a trial by jury is a right.  A trial consists of ,any parts.  This article focuses on two of these:  the verdict and appeals.  There are many levels of appeal.  This article deals with the highest State Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.

 

I have practiced law for over twenty years and I believe that our system of justice is the best in the world.  However, I do think that jury trials could be improved upon. 

 

During a trial a judge must make rulings.  These include what is the law, the admissibility of evidence, and the question of whether or not constitutional rights have been violated. If either side in the trial disagrees with the court's ruling, an appeal may be sent to a higher court.

 

These higher courts will determine if the trial court was correct in its ruling.  If it is determined that the trial court was correct, the ruling will be allowed to stand.  If it is determined that the trial court was incorrect, the higher court can order the proper remedy.

 

The higher court has either seven or nine justices.  Each justice has a vote.  The decisions made by these courts have a profound effect on our lives, especially those decisions made by the Supreme Court.

 

These justices are considered to be individuals who have superior knowledge of the constitution and the legal issues involved.  What is wrong with this system?  Nothing in theory.  However, I believe that there should be an entity that reviews court decisions to insure that the public is protected.  The problem is that many decisions coming from the higher court are not unanimous.  Does that mean that some of the justices do not understand the constitution, do not know the legal issues, or, has it become a political decision?  I don't believe that society should be controlled by the opinion of a few.  The laws and rules, I believe, should be clear and precise and follow the constitution as intended by its framers.

 

It is my opinion that the various courts of appeal no longer serve the purpose for which they were entrusted.

 

A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  This may have once been true but now is questionable.  In most high profile cases the media never shows why the defendant may be innocent.  They only show the public why he is guilty.  I don't believe that any opinion should be expressed until the trial is over.  I see the rights of the accused being trampled from the beginning.

 

The court asks the potential jurors if they have formed an opinion as to guilt or innocence of the defendant.  many jurors will be herd to say that they believe that the defendant is guilty and they are then excused from serving on the jury.  I like to ask, when allowed,  "Have any of you looked at my client and decided that he was not guilty?"  I have never received an affirmative response.  Since the defendant is presumed innocent, the correct response should be "yes" from all.  This should be grounds, I think tot strike the whole panel but it is not and does not happen.

 

As stated, laws passed and court decisions made, can all be reviewed in a court of appeals.  The question as to whether the said laws are constitutional can be decided by less than a unanimous vote from the higher court.  However, in most states, the decision of a jury on the guilt or innocence of a defendant must be unanimous.  How is it logical that we allow people who know the law to disagree but insist that layman all reach the same conclusion?

 

I do not believe that requiring a unanimous decision is protective of a defendant's rights.  The minority might vote for guilty and the majority might vote for acquittal.  The state will, in most cases, retry a case when the jury is "hung".

 

The parties can agree to less than a unanimous decision but would have to do so blind, without knowing what the split is.  To level the field it would be useful to make this information known. The state would now if it had a weak case, and the defense would know if it should reach a plea bargain.  The goal should be to discover the truth rather than to win or lose.

 

America may have the best legal system in the world.  I, however, believe that it is flawed in many ways and can be improved.  The lives of American citizens should not be controlled by what someone thinks is politically correct.  Laws need to be clear.  If they cannot be interpreted, they should be rewritten.  The trial judge who made the original ruling should not be reversed unless his ruling is clearly incorrect.